Customer Reviews

The Fountainhead

5 star:		(681)
4 star:		(163)
3 star:		(96)
2 star:		(52)
1 star:		(117)

 

 

This is one of the fastest paced books I have ever read. Ayn Rand's characters come to life as she paints very clear pictures of who they are and what they represent. She does this in spite of the fact that the dialogue is sometimes a bit wooden and stilted. In this novel, she sets forth her philosophy of "objectivism." She exposes those, such as a character named Peter Keating, an architect, who seemingly achieve greatness by copying others but somehow give the illusion of originality and creativity. In order to achieve "greatness," Keating was literally willing to sell anything, including his wife. Thus despite wealth and apparant achievement, his life was empty. Rand begins to formulate her values that altruism is an evil because a society which seeks to achieve this must do so at someone's expense and therefore leads to collectivism. In the person of Ellsworth Toohey, a flamboyant newspaper columnist, she shows how the power hungry manipulate the masses by setting a standard of mediocrity which fosters collectivism.

This book is full of passion, including a flaming, complex romantic affair between individualist architect Howard Roarke and socialite Dominique Francon. Their relationship develops from one in which they each seek to assert power over the other while achieving sexual release to one of true love between genuine soul mates. Roarke also has a passion for his work and is uncompromising in his creativity in accomplishing his professional goals. He will not ever compromise these goals despite enormous pressures to do so. Rand believed that there is only black and white in moral issues; there is no gray. Therefore, giving in a little is not compromise but rather, selling out your values and giving in to evil. Roarke was not a man to sell out, he had the courage of his convictions.

While setting forth her philosophy, Rand has also given us a novel which has a well developed plot. I found the novel to be gripping and I couldn't put it down. Following the career of Howard Roarke and the machinations of his enemies was fascinating. The plot had enough twists to provide surprises and to hold the reader's interest. This book is both an enjoyable novel as well as a challenging philosophical statement. I like Rand's philosophy and I love this book.

Read just about any four or five star customer review and you have a fine summary of this book. It is not necessary for me to repeat what has already been said. I myself would like to talk about the individual characters which keep me rereading this book as much as the philosophy does. Roark, Keating, Toohey (shudder), Dominique, etc., all represent facets of humanity, good and evil. But characters like Keating and Wynand are more complex than the characters in Atlas Shrugged. Yes, they are Randian archetypes but they have taught me much about human nature.

Keating, had he a little more backbone, might have actually been able to make something of himself. Unlike the villains of AS, he was somewhat sympathetic. He was in love with Catherine, a woman who may not have possessed the glamor and poise of Dominique but who was right for him simply because they were happy when they were together. Fool that he was, he instead opted for what he thought he was supposed to, just as he chose architecture over his true calling, painting. His story is a lesson for all of us. To detractors of the book who call it contemptuous of people I say you don't HAVE to be this way. Don't be a Peter Keating. It is up to you.

Ellsworth Toohey is a villain for the ages, somebody you just love to hate. I won't even describe him as a man. I relish the creepy, slimy feeling I get rereading the passages about him. Every patronizing, smarmy sentence that comes out of his mouth is designed to make one cringe. The fact that he DOESN'T seek out wealth, or even happiness, makes him all the worse.

It is through him and this book that I learned what is evil: holding society and "the greater good" over the individual. Now, whenever I read or watch the news, I am acutely aware of the malice in people who would say they are trying to protect society when their actions result in harm to an individual, or worse, equate society with an individual as I recently heard from a prominent proponent of the death penalty. Again, he is a lesson to all of us: beware the Ellsworth Tooheys of the world. They are out there.

Rand wrote Roark as the ideal man. He certainly is that. I could never expect to be as he is but I firmly believe that he is something to strive for. He had the courage of his convictions. He did not care what other people thought, except those whose opinions mattered to him, such as his mentor, Cameron. Such is the lesson I learned from him. If I find myself jealous or resentful of somebody, I asked myself what my weakness is because fear of one's own shortcomings is from whence hatred and jealousy arise.

If it is difficult to relate to a man who does not even see you, as he is frequently described, consider for a moment why it is important for him to see you and why you feel your own worth is based on how others see you. Then consider the friends that he makes in the book, competent and intelligent people who feel about the world as he does. And finally consider what true friendship is. It is not alms to be doled out in the name of compassion. It is respect and love for those whom we enjoy having around us.

Dominique Francon is a strange bird (Rand said that Dominique was her in a bad mood). Her motivations are complex but when I think about them, they make sense to me. I see her as somebody who has so much contempt for the world that she doesn't think it deserves a man like Roark (or a woman like her). Hence the reason she works against Roark, not to deprive Roark of a living but to deprive the world of Roark. Clarifying the reasons behind her actions also clarifies that controversial rape scene. It is the ideal man saying to the ideal but obstinate woman that the world cannot destroy him. They spar violently to show how strong they are.

Gail Wynand is less interesting to me but an intriguing character nonethless, the man who could have been. He had the drive and the intelligence but, like Dominique, too much contempt. His contempt for humanity at least was purer and cleaner than Toohey's love for humanity. I wonder if, had his childhood not been so brutal, he might have gone a different direction. But then I think that had Roark had a brutal childhood, he still would have come out the same. Such is Wynand's weakness. A sad waste, really.

Atlas Shrugged is THE definitive Rand book. I myself certainly feel this way. Nevertheless, The Fountainhead has virtues that one does not find in that mighty tome. As in AS the characters are largely archetypes but interesting in different ways. Even though Atlas Shrugged is several hundred pages longer than The Fountainhead, it also feels more streamlined. The characters are more complex in the latter (except, admittedly, for Roark), maybe because where Atlas Shrugged deals in the steel and railroad industries, The Fountainhead deals in the more aestetic field of architecture which, incidentally, Rand describes beautifully.

Funny how most of the reviews are either unqualified adulation from Rand worshipers or slams from Rand haters. IMO, "The Fountainhead" is neither a prophetic work of great genius nor a piece of evil tripe. It is a brilliant work, perhaps even with flashes of genius -- but as flawed as its author.

I think Rand had the potential to be a great novelist, which she largely ruined when she decided she was the world's greatest philosopher since Aristotle. Any dogma is the enemy of art. If you read Rand's three major novels -- "We the Living", "The Fountainhead", and "Atlas Shrugged" -- you can see her dogma becoming more and more rigid, and her characters less and less human. "The Fountainhead" is a novel you can still appreciate even if you don't agree with the philosophy (and I think the philosophy has some excellent points, just taken to an absurd extreme).

Unlike some reviewers here, I don't find Howard Roark to be completely inhuman. He does feel pain -- not only the pain of his own struggle but of his mentor Henry Cameron and his friend Steve Mallory, the sculptor. It's just that, as Rand says, the pain "only goes down to a certain point" because it can't touch the core of his independent soul. But consider this passage when Dominique tells Roark she has married Peter Keating: "It would have been easy, if she had seen a man distorting his mouth to bite off sound, closing his fists and twisting them in defense against himself. But it was not easy, because she did not see him doing this, yet knew that this was being done, without the relief of a physical gesture." Clearly this is a man who feels and suffers. He can feel sympathy as well: for Gail Wynand, even for Peter Keating.

At that stage, Rand herself was still capable of sympathy for less-than-perfect characters. Guy Francon, Dominique's father, is an opportunist -- but ultimately still more a good than a bad guy. His relationship with his daughter, sparsely depicted, is nonetheless very "real" and touching. Even Keating, the ultimate "second-hander" and in many ways a despicable man, is to some extent sympathetic and is shown as having some good in him. His failed romance with his true love, Katie, is very poignant -- and the scene near the end where he meets her years after dumping her, when she has "gotten over" him and lost her humanity, is truly heartbreaking. (Though her loss of humanity and selfhood is a little too complete.)

Gail Wynand is a fascinating, tragic character throughout -- and in a way, his relationship with Dominique is more interesting than the Howard/Dominique romance. The story of his childhood and his rise in the newspaper industry is absorbing and very well-written.

Some reviewers mention stilted dialogue. I don't agree. Yes, there are long passages where the characters preach/philosophize instead of talking, and become nothing but vehicles for Rand's ideas. But apart from that, the dialogue is mostly dynamic, crisp, and quite believable (e.g. the first meeting between Wynand and Dominique).

Rand also has a terrific descriptive style. Take this passage describing the aftermath of rain: "The pavements glistened, there were dark blotches on the walls of buildings, and since it did not come from the sky, it looked as if the city were bathed in cold sweat. The air was heavy with untimely darkness, disquieting like premature old age, and there were yellow puddles of light in the windows."

And there are wonderful, memorable lines; one of my favorites is, "All love is exception-making."

Now the flaws. The character of Dominique, particularly in the first half of the book, is not very plausible. I don't "get" her masochism, the wallowing in her degradation at Roark's hands in their first encounter. (And yes, it was definitely rape -- Dominique herself repeatedly describes it as such.) Her motives for trying to destroy Roark's career when she has already realized she loves him never feel "real," no matter how Rand tries to rationalize them. I enjoy twisted love-hate relationships as much as the next gal (one of my favorite books is "Wuthering Heights") but this is twisted beyond plausibility. (Dominique becomes much more believable in the second half of the book, though; the scene where she finally comes back to Roark is great.)

Ellsworth Toohey with his grandiose plans for world power is even more implausible. And the idea that the dumbing down of culture is some sort of deliberate plot to pass off mediocre works as great ones in order to debase cultural standards ... puh-leeze.

Rand has an annoying tendency to restate every idea a dozen times and hammer the reader over the head with it. Eventually you just want to shout, "All right, Ayn -- I got the point!"

As for the philosophy -- yes, the occasional super-individualist like Howard Roark is great. A lot of great geniuses, including apparently Leonardo da Vinci, didn't have the "people" gene. But if everyone behaved like that ... I'm not sure it would be such a great world to live in. No matter how much Rand might pretend otherwise, her worship of the great man does have a flip side of contempt for the mass of humanity. See Wynand's comment to Dominique, "One can't love man without hating most of the creatures who pretend to bear his name." That's scary. So is Rand's palpable disgust for the imperfections of unheroic human (and particularly female) flesh.

A readable, thought-provoking book, but hardly a guide to life. Read it -- but with a critical mind.

I'm 38 years old and just read The Fountainhead for the first time. That probably gives me a little more life experience than others who have read it, so here's my two cents.

The characters in this book are somewhat exaggerated, but nonetheless are very, very real, in that they have counterparts in the world we live in. Roark is cut from the same cloth that Socrates, Jesus, Luther, Edison, Thomas Jefferson, the Wright Brothers, Steve Jobs, Sam Walton, etc., were. They all had a burning passion for one field of human endeavor. They held revolutionary ideas that were met with scorn by the status quo and the chronically insecure. They struggled against overwhelming odds to see their visions become reality. And, in the end, the proved to be benefactors of all mankind.

Keating, Toohey, and Wynand are all parasites to one degree or another. Keating has no real talent, but is a master of back-stabbing and rear-end kissing. In short, he would be a huge success on "Survivor." However, his lack of talent and integrity ultimately destroy his career, and his desire to please everyone but himself destroys his soul. Anyone who has ever dealt with office politics has met a Peter Keating.

Toohey cripples the very people he says he wants to "help." He puts them down in subtle ways and loads them with pathological guilt. He uses people's dependence on him to hold up his faltering self esteem, so he dares not allow them to become truly whole and independent human beings. I have met ministers, teachers, social workers and "advocates" of various causes who mirror Toohey quite nicely. Jim Jones is a well known real world example. Tony Soprano's mother on the HBO show is a fictional type of Toohey. The atrocious Disney movie "Pocohontas" was shot full of Tooheyisms.

Wynand is a pimp. He makes money off of society's shortcomings, all the while making those shortcomings worse. He's like the executives who produce bilge like "gangsta rap" CDs,publish rags like The Enquirer, make stars of people like Britney Spears, and create shows like Jerry Springer.

Roark is hated and feared by them and people like them, because they would rather cling to the trash at hand than reach up and snatch a pearl.

I've dealt with Keatings, Tooheys, and Wynands all my adult life. You can find them in business meetings, on church boards, working for government agncies and participating in civic groups. They are real, they are numerous, and they really are a threat to the progress of the human race.

Ms. Rand felt that the world was full of lazy idiots, and that it is kept going by the blood, sweat and tears of a handful of people with intelligence, passion and integrity. If you read the past reviews, you'll realize she was right. So many of them must have been written by people who didn't give the book the careful reading it deserves, if they actually read it at all.

If you decide to read this book, be warned now that it's no walk in the park. I spent the first half of it thinking "Roark, chill, dude, it's just a damn building!" It's only later that you understand how architecture is used as a metaphor for all fields of human pursuit. Also, it is subtly revealed towards the end that Roark's real beef with historical architecture is not that it is deficient or worthless, but that nothing has been added to it since its development. The architects of his day paid homage to the past, but did not seek to develop new and improved techniques of their own. In this way, they were living "second hand" off the genius of others.

Journeying through the Fountainhead is like walking through a field of diamonds that are buried just beneath the surface. There are innumerable treasures waiting to be found, but you must be observant and careful to find them. Be assured, the reward is worth the effort.

I give the book four stars because it does have some significant flaws. Ms. Rand exercises poor word choice. For example she speaks of the folly of "living for others" when she really means "living for the approval of others." This, plus her use of words like "selfishness" versus "altruism" to describe things like self confidence versus neurotic co-dependency are major problems. It's almost as if she wanted to blur what she was saying just enough to force the reader to think deeply about what they were reading. Or perhaps the fact that English wasn't her first language was a hindrance - I don't know.
Warning: the initial, violent love scene between Roark and Dominique is probably an extension of her own sex fantasies, which apparently had a strong sado-masochistic element. It is detrimental to the message of the book, and is it's greatest shortcoming. Also, she seems unneccessarily antagonistic towards religion. There is much in the Bible, ex. the parable of the talents, as well as Jesus' admonition to not cast pearls to swine, that dovetails nicely with the book's message. I believe that she over reacted to what she saw happening in her native Soviet Union, throwing out all notions of collective effort and responsibility in favor of an absolute emphasis on the individual.

Nonetheless, it is extremely well written, especially in its descriptive power. Ms. Rand knew and loved New York City intimately, and that comes forth strongly. Also, its message, if you take the time to properly understand it, is profoundly true, and applicable to the human condition as a whole. All in all, this book is highly recommended.

Wow. Where to start with a book of this size, scope, and complexity?

Well, first, Ayn Rand is not a goddess. The sheer number of quasi-disciples ranting on this website (and others) about how she changed their lives are not only frightening, they're missing the point. Of course, their blind adherence to her philosophy will allow them to brand me a "second-hander" or something of the sort and write off my comments as frightened or jealous. Go Googling for "Ayn Rand cult" sometime, and you'll see just how far the tentacles of this beast can stretch.

With that said, this is actually a very enjoyable book. Not often can I find myself pulled ahead from page to page by the writing style of a Harlequin Romance series novelist, while simultaneously being forced to pause and ponder some of the complex motivations of her characters or the ideas they (sometimes unconvincingly) exchanged during lengthy monologues. Rand has some very original ideas (or at least cobbles together an original synthesis of these ideas from other philosophies/ers). Her ideas on individuality, while carried here to an extreme, could stand to be applied in moderation to a culture that seems to now be run by masses of simpering Keatings who refuse to accept responsibility.

The character of Gail Wynand is, to me, the most interesting in the whole book. Though all of the characters, at various times, make decisions that seem strange based on complex motives dealing with unusual ideas of pleasure, pain, and need, Wynand does this almost constantly. He grants the people power over him by convincing himself he owns them; he befriends Roark, tries to save him, and then abandons him after Roark saves himself; the list goes on and on. Despite the woodenness and archetypicality of most of the other characters, in Wynand Rand managed to create someone genuine and believable.

And for those claiming that Roark rapes Dominique, to my recollection she does not fight back. That would make it rape. Sex can be violent, and often is, without the actual act of rape taking place. Considering how messed-up Dominique's ideas of power and pleasure are, she might just be a textbook masochist, in which case causing her sexual pain would be the highest pleasure Howard could give her.

Now for the caveats:
First, this novel displays an astounding naivete about human nature and socioeconomic theory. Especially in the wake of corporate accountability scandals, is there anyone left who actually believes that the Roarks of the world will triumph over those who are willing to sleaze around and take whatever they can whenever they can from whomever they can? The current climate in America is a strange one: Tooheys abound, but they are in Roarkian positions in society. Rand's assumptions about the nature of power and of the masses have proven not to be quite as accurate as they first seem.

I would also recommend finding out a bit about Rand's life before either slamming or idolizing this book, or any of her others. For instance, knowing that her family's store was taken over by the state in Russia, forcing her family into poverty when she was still a child, can help put into perspective her near-hysterical insistence that collectivism can never work, EVER, IN ANY FORM!!!(etc...). And knowing a bit about her circle of devotees and their practices, such as a modified process of expulsion and banishment for members that Rand disagreed with, can show what the world would be like populated with megalomaniacs like Roark, or Rand herself.

Overall, this is a very thought-provoking, enjoyable read, to be read by anyone frustrated with the vapidity and self-conscious posturing of most modern novels. Just don't get sucked one way or the other by the raging controversies and you'll come out of it enriched and (possibly) more understanding of the mindset of anyone you know who may seem to behave like Roark at times.

And to those who whine that Roark's ending speech is too long, pick up Atlas Shrugged. If memory serves, John Galt's ending speech is at least four times as long.

I feel the purpose of reading is to be challenged: ideologically, philosophically, politically, etc. Either those challenges will cause one to rethink one's beliefs or strengthen one's existing convictions. Either of these outcomes will produce, I believe, a better person - a thinker who is willing to encounter more than one argument, one side to any issue, and still retain opinions of one's own.

I would also like to counter some of the comments that the book is simply a thinly veiled treatise on Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. If anyone read the introduction written by Rand she answers a fundamental question:

"Was The Fountainhead written for the purpose of presenting my philosophy? ... This is the motive and purpose of my writing; the projection of the ideal man ... My purpose, first cause and prime motive is the portrayal of Howard Roark as an end in himself."

What I understood from Rand's statement is that her ultimate goal is to present her characters - showing, through their actions and inactions, attitudes and convictions - and the good and bad points of their diverse perspectives on life. In interpreting the book, I feel one should focus on how one perceives the characters, not on what the afterward by Leonard Peikoff or any other outside source espouses.

Form your own opinion of the philosophical ideas expressed in the book - do not rely on Piekoff's interpretation or the interpretation of this review or others. Read the book and analyze the characters on your own - pull from them what grabs at you - what relates to any of your life experiences. To me, that is the most effective way to think and read. Think critically and scrutinize closely and you will not fail to learn from most every part of life.

This is how I approached the novel and I was not disappointed.

It makes no sense to attempt to separate the story of The Fountainhead from it's philosophy, because they are one in the same. I read the first page of this book while bored at a yard sale, and was immediately hooked. Rand's character introductions are excellent, and immediately give picture to the character. This is especially important because for the most part, her characters each represent a personality type consistent with a particular aspect of her philosopy.

What I believe unique about this book is the singular challenge Rand had in crafting a novel that can stand on it's own as a story (it can), while each page advances the specific set of philosophical, political and economic positions that are the true reason the book was written. I imagine that other writers have sat down to write "the novel" deep within them, with major philosophical themes providing dramatic tension. Other writers, wanting to advance their own complex philosophy, would simply write a non-fiction book presenting themselves as gurus of this "new" way of thinking (whole sections of bookstores are full of such books). Rand's courage to attempt to write a great novel that is in fact a primer for Objectivism, and her skill in doing so is what makes The Fountainhead the achievement it is.

Now, why only three stars? A couple of reasons. First, although her story arcs are superior, her paragraph by paragraph writing is often heavy handed, and beats her points to death. Secondly, the length and scope of some of the philosophical speeches given by her characters, particularly in the last quarter of the book, are simply not believable. Employing other writing techniques could have achieved this more believably. It's as if Rand hasn't trusted her own characters to carry the point she put them in the book to illustrate. The speeches do however, make their points crystal clear, especially Toohey's speech about collectivism. It's just that you don't believe Toohey would have made that speech, to that person, in that setting.

I said at the beginning that it makes no sense to separate the story from the philosophy, and though I know I am now criticizing the philosophy and not the writing, here goes. If I read this correctly, Rand's "ideal man" is entirely self focused, does nothing he doesn't want to do regardless of anyone else's need, does everything he wants to do regardless of how it might effect others, places himself above the rule of law, commits several felonies, watches virtually everyone around him self destruct and leaves the novel entirely self satisfied. Rand calls this the "ideal man". Others might read the same book and identify Roark as a sociopath, just a very talented one who also possesses many admirable qualities. By the way, on a factual point, the idea of Roark being acquitted after admitting the deed in open court is ludicrous.
Wasn't it Shakespeare who told us "To thine own self be true"? The notion of being your own man, and standing on principle is as old as philosophy itself, but Rand has given it entirely fresh treatment and perspective.

One last note- my wife was reading "Atlas Shrugged" at the same time I was reading "The Fountainhead". It took until I was nearly finished to notice that there are no children in the book. None of the main characters are raising the next generation of ideal men. I asked my wife about "Atlas Shrugged", and she said the same. I wonder if this isn't the fatal flaw of Objectivism- can you be true to Objectivism and be a good parent? Or raise a family? Or preserve a marriage where "the two shall become one"? Her two major novels show that her characters can't, and a glimpse around you might show that the "me" generation isn't doing such a good job either.

Only thing that was keeping me from ever reading The Fountainhead were the dozen number of people who recommended it to me. It is a certified guaranteed winner as per most people (most of whom cannot frame a sentence without using words such as "nice" , "intelligent" ,"sweet" etc.)

The Fountainhead is impactful,precise,gigantic in it's scope, the work of a mastermind. Ayn Rand shocked me(again) with her control over character definitions and flabbergasting logic. After I had finished reading Atlas Shrugged, I felt a bit cheated and robbed of my time. Don't get me wrong, "A.S" has my favourite book character of all time in Fransisco but it is the "giving in" nature of most characters in Atlas Shrugged that made it seem a bit too harsh to me.There is a certain preachiness in the words of John Galt that didn't really sell consequence. Moving on, about Fountainhead I'd like to say that it has the best and most well conceived perception of a human brain I've read. Some of my favourite characters in the book are Peter Keating, Gail Wynand (the best), Ellsworth Toohey (never has a character been this interesting in his villain own self) and the hero, Howard Roark. One very tactful and intentional foreplay of characters is the fact that they are all unique. You will never once in the book find a flaw or loophole in any of the characters. What I'm trying so hard to say will be better explained by examples.

Howard Roark never says more than he thinks he must in this book and often says nothing when you'd expect him to talk. Gail Wynand doesn't ever give away his self respect into the hands of another and never begs anyone. Ellsworth Toohey never gets himself into trouble despite the mind riots he causes most lesser people in the book.

Ayn Rand has an astounding quantity of mind. She shocks me repeatedly in this book by adding a shape to certain thoughts every 20 something year old guy goes through. I do not like the part where there is raw love between Howard Roark and Dominique because it seems a bit too barbaric and unrealistic for me to swallow. It's surprising how boring and dull the book became for a few pages when Roark and Dominique Francon meet. There is a certain sarcasm that the book displays in paragraphs containing comments made by the local people. Fountainhead was extremely funny in it's own silent subtle way at times.

WHY IS IT BETTER THAN ATLAS SHRUGGED(to me)?
I hope I do not offend anyone by comparing the two but like many readers have pointed out, most characters of The Fountainhead grow on you and towards the last few pages your pace of reading declines(intentionally). Gail Wynand with his practicality and adaptation skills makes more of a hero than any of the much exaggerated Atlas Shrugged Characters. Atlas Shrugged is an epic in itself but it doesn't manage to grip you like The Fountainhead does. Most books ignore the character details of the villains but in Fountainhead, Ellsworth Toohey gets a whole lot of pages dedicated to him.
Gail Wynand with his "I Do" yacht was easily the most eyebrow raising thing in the book. Wynand fought a life against all odds. For him to believe in his own individual existence came as a shocker to me. Wynand is very inspiring. I won't say much because the more I talk of Gail Wynand, the more I feel I'm depriving him of a quality summary.
Ellsworth Toohey made me smile with how well knew the people around him. His attention to detail and "liquid cement memory" were both very well jotted down. Dominique Francon was a bit of a mixed bag which is why I don't mention her very often. She was almost half as bad as Dagny Taggart from Atlas Shrugged.

To end what I had to say, The Fountainhead is the best book I have read in my life. It's reassuring, almost magical touch of brilliant storywriting , flawless character defintions and the much loved irony brings me down to my knees. I do not suggest this book to everyone maybe because I do not think everyone will quite understand it. In any case, Enjoy whatever works.
I loved all reviews on this book because even the negative ones make a lot of sense come to think of it.

This book is almost un-critiqueable due to its uniqueness and the awe with which it is held by the late Miss Rand's more devoted followers. But I'll try! The plot spans the years 1922 to about 1938 and traces the career arc of two rival architects, Howard Roark and Peter Keating. Roark's approach to design and function in architecture is roughly based on Frank Lloyd Wright's; Keating is a meretricious copyist incapable of an original idea whose main function seems to be to look good in a tuxedo while entertaining clients. Roark's fatal flaw is that he accepts no client changes to his architectural plans - none whatsoever, not even the most conservative Greek column on the ground floor of a bank building. Of Roark and Keating, whom do you think has the more successful career? By the late-1920s Keating has become the toast of Manhattan while Roark is reduced to poverty. Yet it is Roark to whom Keating slinks when he has trouble designing an ultramodern skyscraper for a prestigious competition. Roark is allegedly the egomaniacal one, yet he helps Keating without asking for recognition or payment of any kind.

Things get even more perverse on the love front. Not to give too much of the plot away, but a sensous, emotionally distant woman who is just Roark's type takes up with exactly the kind of men who hurt Roark the most. It's utterly appalling and yet, in Rand's equation, somehow convincingly human, which makes it all the more appalling. The path to heroism in an Ayn Rand novel is never easy.

There's a lot more going on, including a sleazy gazillionaire publisher with the seeds of greatness, an urbane man of letters who should have been murdered in the crib, and a public housing project that didn't survive to see the light of day. But probably the most salient feature of THE FOUNTAINHEAD is that it is a philosophical novel about the nature of human progress, how it is achieved, by whom and at what cost. (Lucky for us, the speechifying is relayed mostly through dialog and doesn't clutter the plot.)

So is THE FOUNTAINHEAD a good book? I'm not sure that Miss Rand would agree with the tenets of "vox populi, vox dei," but suffice it to say that the book hasn't been out of print since it was first published in 1943 and the New American Library still derives a significant amount of its income from Rand's writings. Read this book, and if you like it go on to the more challenging ATLAS SHRUGGED. You don't have to adopt any kind of political agenda to enjoy THE FOUNTAINHEAD.

"The Fountainhead" is a great rarity; a well-written and successful philosophical novel. Though Ayn Rand becomes occasionally too didactic, I realize that she was concerned that some readers would be unable to see the points she was making. I did find this novel humorous at points, as Rand placed Howard Roarke, her protagonist, in contrast to his environment so that Roarke appeared to be in control of his environment. Those who understand this novel will find humor in many places. I am unsure of how much of the humor was intentional and how much was unintentional.

There are several principal characters in this 700+ page book. Howard Roarke is an architect. Roarke believes in himself and is a creator. Rand uses Roarke as her example of the "perfect" man. Rand contrasts Roarke primarily with Peter Keaton. Keaton is an adapter of technology. He "borrows" his architectural concepts from historic styles rather than focusing on the practical and having form follow function. Keaton panders to popular styles. Roarke designs plans that are functional and fit within their environment. The beauty of Roarke's designs is in their functionality and how each design fits its environment. Unfortunately, repetitive design is valued, and creativity is not.

There are several other significant characters in this book. Ellsworth Toohey is a newspaper columnist. Toohey exemplifies mediocrity. Toohey is manipulative and power hungry, but is so subtle in his machinations that few people recognize Toohey for what he is. I was fascinated that Toohey seemed to want a worthy opponent and lamented that his opponents were unable to see what Toohey was doing. Toohey's comments and actions imply that Toohey seeks socialism or communism, but he wants to be the absolute dictator. Toohey seems to have all the worst characteristics of communism and fascism.

Gail Wynand is the owner of a chain of newspapers. Wynand is a self made man. Wynand is quite similar to Roarke in many ways, though it takes us a long time to discover the similarities. Both men eventually come to admire each other.

Dominique Francon is very important to the novel. She appears cold-hearted, though she is not. She becomes a connection between Keating, Wynand and Roarke. However, Dominique realizes that she will likely destroy nearly everyone she contacts. Rand uses Dominique as a tool for continuity throughout the novel and to aid in contrasting the characteristics of the three men in Dominique's life.

What is "The Fountainhead" about? It is about one man pursuing his quest for what he believes to be right, regardless of what most of the world thinks. Rand hypothesizes that if that man is correct, and has an objective ideal as his goal, that eventually the rest of the world will recognize the validity of that man's (or woman's) viewpoint and follow along. "The Fountainhead" is against the average, against mediocrity, against collectivism, against rule by committee, and against the manipulation of people by those whose only purpose is to seek power over other men. "The Fountainhead" is for individualism, for creativity, for following your own path and for objective truth.

Ayn Rand tried to keep her explanations relatively simple. She characterized people as those who lived through others and those who lived for themselves. However, I think there could be a third category, which Rand likely classified as the second category. As we know, not every person is highly creative. But, an average person may well recognize the creativity of a person such as Roarke, and admiring such creativity, does what they can to bring that creativity to realization. I would call this third category a person who facilitates the creator.

The first time I read "The Fountainhead," I considered the book profound. I looked at the world, and myself, in a different perspective. This book is easy to read, but it is not light reading. The book requires a lot of thought, and you may find that you disagree with Rand or you may be disappointed. If you are a potential Howard Roarke, it is unlikely that you will read this book at all. For the rest of us, "The Fountainhead" is a great work of fiction that embodies what many of us like to believe is the basis of the United States. While there may be a little cowboy in us, there is a lot of pioneer spirit, which was founded on a strong sense of individualism. We can only hope that these ideals remain with us in the future.

I hope you find this book as incredible as I did. Enjoy!